# With Liberty and Justice for Some



## Mr.Lordi

First things first. This isn't a political thread and I don't want to make it that way. This is, rather, a piece I wrote in defense of smokers.

In Maine, they are trying to pass a bill that would discriminate against smokers on health care. Removing them from the very system they pay into. This isn't the first time there has been this kind of discrimination in the US and not just from Republicans, but so called "Liberals", too!

I don't care where you stand on the issue of health care, rather, my beef is with smokers being demonized, again.

Since I'm a writer (Not professionally, but maybe someday?) and I have a severe allergy to stupidity (Not to mention I'm arrogant enough to think my opinion actually means something. I make Christopher Hitchens' ego, look small. lol) I wrote a OP-ED piece, as I usually do (Lets be honest, it's a rant lol) and am posting it here.

Perhaps I'm wrong with my defense here, but I figured I'd post it anyway and see what people thought, good or bad. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, if you feel that way.

If the mods want to delete this, be my guest. Lets not get into the politics of health care, but rather, the article and discrimination of us smokers, again, as usual.

Read here to see it in article form: With Liberty and Justice for Some - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

or



Mr.Lordi said:


> _"They proved that if you quit smoking, it will prolong your life. What they haven't proved is that a prolonged life is a good thing. I haven't seen the stats on that yet."-_Bill Hicks
> 
> I'm not here to get into a debate on whether or not we should have healthcare. We already have it, and it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere soon. Rather, I wish to address ignorance and discrimination dealt towards smokers, again.
> 
> People (See Republicans, but not just them some "Liberals", too!) want to take away healthcare from these people, yet they don't look at the risky behavior they engage in and they do engage in a lot.
> 
> Do you have or ever had an STD? Well, you wouldn't have if you abstained from sex. Condom wasn't good enough protection; they only offer a 99.9% chance of success IF used right. We have no independent data to know you used it right, so we'll assume fault lies with you. The only way to not get an STD would be to not have sex. Sorry, you're no longer covered. NEXT!
> 
> You got in a car accident? Shouldn't have gotten a car than. You're not covered, even if it isn't your fault. Had you just not drove, you would be fine. Sorry, next.
> 
> The list is ENDLESS!' the fact is we all engage in risky behavior we know carry consequences, but do it anyways.
> 
> The point of state run healthcare is to prevent these people from being kicked off regular insurance for living life. It's supposed to be a better deal than normal insurance.
> 
> If we stop smokers from being on it, will they still have to pay into it? I hope not. Why should they have to pay for the risky behavior you indulge in?
> 
> This is the inherent problem with tax payer funded medicine. Everyone thinks they get a say and they really don't.
> 
> Why does a single guy have to pay for your helplessly mediocre child to be put through public schools, only to grow up to be a janitor? Sorry, I was being a jerk. I mean "Master of the Custodial Arts" as Dave Chappelle once put it.
> 
> What we should do is find an independent source of revenue, which could pay for these programs for everyone who needs to be on it. SCHIP is a perfect example of funded healthcare through product generated revenue. We taxed tobacco smokers to fund SCHIP for those kids of yours. You know, the ones you clearly can't afford, so you shouldn't have had. The very people you want to take healthcare from. Yeah, your kid is covered because of them.
> 
> Instead of degrading them, try thanking them the next time your child's life is saved. Maybe think of how you could repay them. Maybe in the same way they saved your child?
> 
> If not, then the next time you get hurt engaging in risky behavior , try declining healthcare, if you can.
> 
> Now if only there was an untapped resource that is in high demand. Oh, Marijuana! You know the drug that doubles as medicine, the very thing that would make perfect sense to use to fund a healthcare program.
> 
> That might require common sense, though. Too bad that doesn't exist in America.


P.S. I'm aware SCHIP wasn't a perfect thing, rather, it was an example. Sorry about typos, too! can't find my glasses. :/

Enjoy, hopfully.


----------



## Natedogg

Are you talking about the government provided healthcare, or all healthcare?

Either way, they will continue to cover the lady 2 cubes over from me who admittedly eats 8500+ calories a day, but will pull this kind of BS.

I agree, I am sick and tired of everything being blamed on smoking. If you live in or close to a major city, the pollution will get the non-smokers too. The cloned meat and tainted food chain will kill most people quicker than smoking would. The continued craze of eating fast food in this country will kill more people than smoking will. They won't show you those stats though.

Has anyone else seen that thing about Morticians using less embalming fluid these days than 50 years ago? We are preserving ourselves and killing ourselves with preserved food. But smoking is bad!


----------



## Mr.Lordi

I'm referring to Maine care, which is state funded. This is what prompted the opinion piece: Bill would deny MaineCare to smokers | State

The article as a whole, though, addresses the discrimination of smokers and healthcare(of all kinds) all over the US.


----------



## Granger

For a non political thread you used an extremely biased political statement in your opening:

"This isn't the first time there has been this kind of discrimination in the US and not just from Republicans, but so called 'Liberals', too!"

You imply that discrimination comes from one party and you excuse those of the other party with the use of the phrase "so-called"

I am a libertarian so you didn't gore my bull, but I would bet dollars to donuts that you, whether by malicious intent or inadvertently biased commentary based upon your personal views, did attack the political leanings of some.

Having attempted a recent thread on taxes and realized that tobacco legislation discussions bring out the Us vs. Them of a two party system; I understand the need to refrain from political discussions on this board.

Without that biasing statement then you might be able to claim this as a "Non-Political Thread"

Now, as to a critique of your writing...

As a published author and editor of scholarly journals I think I have a good idea of what it takes to write well.

Well, if your goal is to join Anne Coulter and Bill Mahr (See how I used a representative of the two extremes to mitigate a bias?) then you are on the right track. You take a premise and then fit it to your views.

This statement "The point of state run healthcare is to prevent these people from being kicked off regular insurance for living life. It's supposed to be a better deal than normal insurance." Is a statement of opinion, masquerading as fact. 

The "Point of state run healthcare" is not to insure people from being kicked off for "living life." People are kicked off of insurance for being a bad financial risk. Have you had cancer twice? Then you might be kicked off or charged more...not because you are LIVING LIFE (I don't know many who get Breast Cancer and then just go on out and GET IT AGAIN TO LIVE BABY!) but because you stand to be a financial risk in the near future.

Government insurance is also NEVER supposed to be a better deal than "normal" insurance, it is supposed to be a more egalitarian system that includes everyone. However, in societies with social insurance the wealthiest still enjoy better health care because they can pay for it.

These are not opinions, these are supportable statements. Want to see my references?

Further critique goes to your "single man" and school tax comment. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Because, while you are paying taxes for a student who isn't your child you are purchasing the peace of mind and society that comes from public schools. Do you know why we have mandatory school in the US? Ever wonder why the legal drop out age is 16?

The answer is: Compulsory school was added following the institution of child labor laws. The number of children roaming the streets free lead to massive surges in crime. Compulsory school was seen as a way to combat this. Secondly the schools were designed on the Industrial Model. The reason schools work they way they do in the US is because they latently teach a student to sit in one place and carry out a repetitive task...just like they would in a factory. Then, there is the fact that YOU benefit from a society that is better educated. Sure some kids turn out poorly, but the existence of the school creates a higher statistical probability of an educated, active, and prepared citizenry.

And the 16 years? That is because the early child labor laws allowed children to work full time at 16. Sociologist will tell you that a 10 year old in 1930 was more mature and possessed more independence and life skills than a 21 year old in 2010.

Paying taxes into a medical system has no direct benefit to you in the manner of schools, unless you consider the aid to society and societal peace. Again, your comparison is not valid.

Then you note SCHIP as a perfect model. No, because the trend is that society will grow. More people means more children will be on this program. The problem is the number of smokers is decreasing, thus you have an expanding program paid for by a shrinking revenue stream. This is about as far from perfect as you can get. 

Tell me, what is an independant revenue stream? Any tax that is levied will be a burden to some, and history demonstrates that all taxes are outpaced by the programs they fund. Thus, taxes are eventually raised (as many tobacco taxes are at this point) to a level that decreases the collected amount. The increased taxes actually decrease the "revenue stream"

Your last comment on taxing Marijuana (and I am a proponent of Legalization although I have desire to use the stuff...its the Libertarian in me) sounds good, except that at some point any program funded with it will also grow beyond its collection. Also, you assume that a legalized Marijuana plant, which is smoked, won't eventually come under the same attacked tobacco has endured followed by a long decline in usage that would further decrease revenue from taxes.

So here are the weaknesses of this piece:
1) Opening with a politically biased statement that will turn off readers and is not supported by history (You imply discrimination comes from Republicans and people who claim, but are not REALLY Liberal, ergo you imply that Liberals NEVER discriminate)
2) Comparing circumstances (Breast Cancer/Childhood Lukemia/etc.) with consequences (Smoking related illness)
3) Using invalid comparisons (Smokers Taxes to School Taxes)
4) Stating opinion as fact (Which you did with both the nature of public insurance. SCHIP, and the potential of Marijuana as a tax base) I know this is an opinion piece, but that does not free you from the burden of factual accuracy nor grant leeway to make your own facts.
5) Making assumptions you cannot support and that are countered by history (The revenue stream from any item paying for a program independently and long term)

Other than this, you did a good job.

I will expect an edited and corrected version tomorrow.

PS: Never ask someone who has had their work edited by someone else and who edits the work of others for publication, for their opinion unless you want it.


----------



## Jivey

Wow... I would hate to be Jason's kids when it is time to get your homework checked.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Granger said:


> For a non political thread you used an extremely biased political statement in your opening:
> 
> "This isn't the first time there has been this kind of discrimination in the US and not just from Republicans, but so called 'Liberals', too!"
> 
> You imply that discrimination comes from one party and you excuse those of the other party with the use of the phrase "so-called"
> 
> I am a libertarian so you didn't gore my bull, but I would bet dollars to donuts that you, whether by malicious intent or inadvertently biased commentary based upon your personal views, did attack the political leanings of some.
> 
> Having attempted a recent thread on taxes and realized that tobacco legislation discussions bring out the Us vs. Them of a two party system; I understand the need to refrain from political discussions on this board.
> 
> Without that biasing statement then you might be able to claim this as a "Non-Political Thread"


I consider myself to be libertarian. I should of said "Dems", but I write these Stream of consciousness, as it's called. I was thinking Republicans because the legislation that prompted this was introduced by Republicans.

I've been told by some that they liked my writing and it had always been done as Stream of Consciousness. I thought perhaps it would translate well as an OP-ED style for me. So far, it hasn't. lol



> Now, as to a critique of your writing...
> 
> As a published author and editor of scholarly journals I think I have a good idea of what it takes to write well.
> 
> Well, if your goal is to join Anne Coulter and Bill Mahr (See how I used a representative of the two extremes to mitigate a bias?) then you are on the right track. You take a premise and then fit it to your views.
> 
> This statement "The point of state run healthcare is to prevent these people from being kicked off regular insurance for living life. It's supposed to be a better deal than normal insurance." Is a statement of opinion, masquerading as fact.
> 
> The "Point of state run healthcare" is not to insure people from being kicked off for "living life." People are kicked off of insurance for being a bad financial risk. Have you had cancer twice? Then you might be kicked off or charged more...not because you are LIVING LIFE (I don't know many who get Breast Cancer and then just go on out and GET IT AGAIN TO LIVE BABY!) but because you stand to be a financial risk in the near future.
> 
> Government insurance is also NEVER supposed to be a better deal than "normal" insurance, it is supposed to be a more egalitarian system that includes everyone. However, in societies with social insurance the wealthiest still enjoy better health care because they can pay for it.
> 
> These are not opinions, these are supportable statements. Want to see my references?
> 
> Further critique goes to your "single man" and school tax comment. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Because, while you are paying taxes for a student who isn't your child you are purchasing the peace of mind and society that comes from public schools. Do you know why we have mandatory school in the US? Ever wonder why the legal drop out age is 16?
> 
> The answer is: Compulsory school was added following the institution of child labor laws. The number of children roaming the streets free lead to massive surges in crime. Compulsory school was seen as a way to combat this. Secondly the schools were designed on the Industrial Model. The reason schools work they way they do in the US is because they latently teach a student to sit in one place and carry out a repetitive task...just like they would in a factory. Then, there is the fact that YOU benefit from a society that is better educated. Sure some kids turn out poorly, but the existence of the school creates a higher statistical probability of an educated, active, and prepared citizenry.
> 
> And the 16 years? That is because the early child labor laws allowed children to work full time at 16. Sociologist will tell you that a 10 year old in 1930 was more mature and possessed more independence and life skills than a 21 year old in 2010.
> 
> Paying taxes into a medical system has no direct benefit to you in the manner of schools, unless you consider the aid to society and societal peace. Again, your comparison is not valid.
> 
> Then you note SCHIP as a perfect model. No, because the trend is that society will grow. More people means more children will be on this program. The problem is the number of smokers is decreasing, thus you have an expanding program paid for by a shrinking revenue stream. This is about as far from perfect as you can get.
> 
> Tell me, what is an independant revenue stream? Any tax that is levied will be a burden to some, and history demonstrates that all taxes are outpaced by the programs they fund. Thus, taxes are eventually raised (as many tobacco taxes are at this point) to a level that decreases the collected amount. The increased taxes actually decrease the "revenue stream"
> 
> Your last comment on taxing Marijuana (and I am a proponent of Legalization although I have desire to use the stuff...its the Libertarian in me) sounds good, except that at some point any program funded with it will also grow beyond its collection. Also, you assume that a legalized Marijuana plant, which is smoked, won't eventually come under the same attacked tobacco has endured followed by a long decline in usage that would further decrease revenue from taxes.
> 
> So here are the weaknesses of this piece:
> 1) Opening with a politically biased statement that will turn off readers and is not supported by history (You imply discrimination comes from Republicans and people who claim, but are not REALLY Liberal, ergo you imply that Liberals NEVER discriminate)
> 2) Comparing circumstances (Breast Cancer/Childhood Lukemia/etc.) with consequences (Smoking related illness)
> 3) Using invalid comparisons (Smokers Taxes to School Taxes)
> 4) Stating opinion as fact (Which you did with both the nature of public insurance. SCHIP, and the potential of Marijuana as a tax base) I know this is an opinion piece, but that does not free you from the burden of factual accuracy nor grant leeway to make your own facts.
> 5) Making assumptions you cannot support and that are countered by history (The revenue stream from any item paying for a program independently and long term)
> 
> Other than this, you did a good job.
> 
> I will expect an edited and corrected version tomorrow.
> 
> PS: Never ask someone who has had their work edited by someone else and who edits the work of others for publication, for their opinion unless you want it.


 Thank you for the brutal honesty. Seriously. I like this. My point is to be similar to Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. They make millions of that type of raid-fire, top of the mind drivel. I wish to be a millionaire someday. Don't we all? :/

I'm trying to be somewhere between Bill Hicks and Carlin, though. Without ties to left or right, just straight, call it as I see it at the time, even if I'm wrong (Which I often am.)

There is so much crap out there, it is rather hard to keep all information that is pumped out, straight.

I read every news there is, too. From Fox to The Nation. I try to not be biased, rather, call out all sides on their BS.

Thanks, though.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

> _
> 
> "They proved that if you quit smoking, it will prolong your life. What they haven't proved is that a prolonged life is a good thing. I haven't seen the stats on that yet."-_Bill Hicks
> 
> I'm not here to get into a debate on whether or not we should have healthcare. We already have it, and it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere soon. Rather, I wish to address ignorance and discrimination dealt towards smokers, again.
> 
> People (See Politicians and those Biased against smokers.) want to take away healthcare from smokers, yet they don't look at the risky behavior they engage in and they do engage in a lot.
> 
> Do you have or ever had an STD? Well, you wouldn't have if you abstained from sex. Condom wasn't good enough protection; they only offer a 99.9% chance of success IF used right. We have no independent data to know you used it right, so we'll assume fault lies with you. The only way to not get an STD would be to not have sex. So why don't we cut off those who have ever engaged in intercourse?
> 
> You got in a car accident? Shouldn't have gotten a car than. Lets not cover anyone with cars.
> 
> The list is ENDLESS!' the fact is we all engage in risky behavior we know carry consequences, but do it anyways.
> 
> If we stop smokers from being on it, will they still have to pay into this system? I hope not. Why should they have to pay for the risky behavior you indulge in?
> 
> We taxed tobacco smokers to fund SCHIP for those kids of yours. The very people you want to take healthcare from. Yeah, your kid is covered because of them. Yet you're so quick to demonize them?
> 
> Instead of degrading them, try thanking them the next time your child's life is saved.
> 
> They're humans, too!


Revised.


----------



## IHT

nice re-write.

2 small things.
1 - you wrote "than" instead of "then" --> "Shouldn't have gotten a car than." we all do it, i probably did it later in this post.
2 - for being a libertarian, i'm very surprised that you didn't even mention the biggest angle of them all for a libertarian... LIBERTY!! where's your remarks about the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE what we do in our spare time? i was waiting for it, thought i'd get it after this line ---> "The list is ENDLESS!' the fact is we all engage in risky behavior we know carry consequences, but do it anyways." <--- it's called freedom. just like the non-smoking laws in bars in a lot of big cities (with heavy liberal voters/policy makers pushing their nanny-state agenda on everyone), they are infringing upon freedoms for the people to decide what the hell they want to do with their lives. the govt controlling whether or not you get healthcare because you smoke a cigar/pipe should be something a libertarian would be all over... hell, the "govt controlling healthcare" should have you frothing at the mouth.

okay, the 2nd one was a little more than i needed to say, should've just stuck to pointing out your lack of pointing out the infringement on personal liberties and govt control of healthcare funded by taxation. 

kudos for being active putting something out there.
and to back up what Granger said, i was initially put off by your political stance in the first couple lines... (removed a couple more paragraphs as they'd lead to political discussion)


----------



## Granger

Mr.Lordi said:


> I consider myself to be libertarian. I should of said "Dems", but I write these Stream of consciousness, as it's called. I was thinking Republicans because the legislation that prompted this was introduced by Republicans.
> 
> I've been told by some that they liked my writing and it had always been done as Stream of Consciousness. I thought perhaps it would translate well as an OP-ED style for me. So far, it hasn't. lol


Even the greatest "Stream of Consciousness" writers (such as Faulkner) spent hours and hours editing and revising their work. Don't confuse SoC with creating a final product. It is an author's device to get out their thoughts, emotions, and details without a worry of form...but AFTERWARDS it needs to be reread, cleaned up, and edited to clarity.

Let me say, you have a solid point in your article, but it gets lost.

In editing it I would have left out any reference to party (the mention of party in any discussion of politics in America turns off readers who align themselves with the opposite view). I would have made it a party neutral statement and used the generic "State Lawmakers" that leaves room for EVERYONE to hate them! 


Mr.Lordi said:


> Thank you for the brutal honesty. Seriously. I like this. My point is to be similar to Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. They make millions of that type of raid-fire, top of the mind drivel. I wish to be a millionaire someday. Don't we all? :/


But, they don't...they make their money from carefully constructed columns. I am not going to name drop, but I know a national commentator/columnist well enough to email with him on a regular basis and share a cigar on a few occasions. People like him, Coulter, Mahr, Sowell, Malkin, etc. don't just spit these out. In fact, a Bill Mahr column is the result of the work of about 6 writers working in concert from an outline he creates. These writers columns go through many re-writes and edits. For every 1,000 words in print about 2,000 go on the floor.

I'm not trying to come down on you, please don't think that, but I want to stress that these folks spend hours and hours one these. They don't pour out finished.


Mr.Lordi said:


> I'm trying to be somewhere between Bill Hicks and Carlin, though. Without ties to left or right, just straight, call it as I see it at the time, even if I'm wrong (Which I often am.)


Again, If you know your Carlin and Hicks you know that they both sweated over the work. It takes a lot of work and practice to make it look that easy.

Hicks was also a master at seeming to adlib, in reality he was just that prepared...he had an answer for everything.

Keep going. That is the No. 1 when being a writer...write daily, write a lot, and use a computer with a back up drive. Bank everything on the hard drive and always go back and critique your work. See what it good, see what needs work. I've written and published for 20 years...I hope to one day get good at it


----------



## Mr.Lordi

IHT said:


> nice re-write.
> 
> 2 small things.
> 1 - you wrote "than" instead of "then" --> "Shouldn't have gotten a car than." we all do it, i probably did it later in this post.
> 2 - for being a libertarian, i'm very surprised that you didn't even mention the biggest angle of them all for a libertarian... LIBERTY!! where's your remarks about the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE what we do in our spare time? i was waiting for it, thought i'd get it after this line ---> "The list is ENDLESS!' the fact is we all engage in risky behavior we know carry consequences, but do it anyways." <--- it's called freedom. just like the non-smoking laws in bars in a lot of big cities (with heavy liberal voters/policy makers pushing their nanny-state agenda on everyone), they are infringing upon freedoms for the people to decide what the hell they want to do with their lives. the govt controlling whether or not you get healthcare because you smoke a cigar/pipe should be something a libertarian would be all over... hell, the "govt controlling healthcare" should have you frothing at the mouth.
> 
> okay, the 2nd one was a little more than i needed to say, should've just stuck to pointing out your lack of pointing out the infringement on personal liberties and govt control of healthcare funded by taxation.
> 
> kudos for being active putting something out there.
> and to back up what Granger said, i was initially put off by your political stance in the first couple lines... (removed a couple more paragraphs as they'd lead to political discussion)


The thing with me is, I'm not old enough to remember a time when Medicare/Medicaid didn't exist.

So while I acknowledge the idea of it being run by the government as bad, I often hear people say how they wouldn't want these programs to go away, even people vehemently opposed to them. Like the tea party with the signs that said "Hands off my Medicare." So I often feel, well, am I wrong? I always feel like I'm the wrong one in the debate, no matter who it is with.

It's sort of how talking about Social Security can kill a Politicians career.

I tend to have a lot of frustration at both sides of the aisle. When I comment on the Huffingtonpost, I often come off very right wing. Pro-second amendment, Pro-Personal Freedom.

When I write these OP-ED's, they usually come off very left wing.

I have one where it makes me come off sounding pro-socialism, because I hear it thrown around and I'm like "Well isn't this thing you like socialism?"

All I know is I would make a horrid politician. lol

Thanks for the comments, though. That thing about personal freedoms was brilliant. I should of thought of it.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Granger said:


> Even the greatest "Stream of Consciousness" writers (such as Faulkner) spent hours and hours editing and revising their work. Don't confuse SoC with creating a final product. It is an author's device to get out their thoughts, emotions, and details without a worry of form...but AFTERWARDS it needs to be reread, cleaned up, and edited to clarity.
> 
> Let me say, you have a solid point in your article, but it gets lost.
> 
> In editing it I would have left out any reference to party (the mention of party in any discussion of politics in America turns off readers who align themselves with the opposite view). I would have made it a party neutral statement and used the generic "State Lawmakers" that leaves room for EVERYONE to hate them! But, they don't...they make their money from carefully constructed columns. I am not going to name drop, but I know a national commentator/columnist well enough to email with him on a regular basis and share a cigar on a few occasions. People like him, Coulter, Mahr, Sowell, Malkin, etc. don't just spit these out. In fact, a Bill Mahr column is the result of the work of about 6 writers working in concert from an outline he creates. These writers columns go through many re-writes and edits. For every 1,000 words in print about 2,000 go on the floor.
> 
> I'm not trying to come down on you, please don't think that, but I want to stress that these folks spend hours and hours one these. They don't pour out finished.Again, If you know your Carlin and Hicks you know that they both sweated over the work. It takes a lot of work and practice to make it look that easy.
> 
> Hicks was also a master at seeming to adlib, in reality he was just that prepared...he had an answer for everything.
> 
> Keep going. That is the No. 1 when being a writer...write daily, write a lot, and use a computer with a back up drive. Bank everything on the hard drive and always go back and critique your work. See what it good, see what needs work. I've written and published for 20 years...I hope to one day get good at it


This is all very good advice. Makes me a better writer so I'm open to constructive criticism. If I'm wrong, I want to know where so I can improve. That's the only way to get better.

Whenever I think I have it the right way, there is something that makes me realize or at least feel like I'm wrong.

Thank you, though.


----------



## smelvis

From one who never even made it to high school. it looks and sounds good to me, I agree simply lawmakers is better. The rest including singles paying for schools LOL

Nice to see people writing letters I do it as well though not so well. I am so tired of being the bad guy. and have never had a dime from the so called system. kinda piss's me off!

Good letters guy's  serious!


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Thanks Smelvis. 

It's important to write letters, even if the politicians don't listen all the time. Well, they don't listen until it's election cycle, then they're all ears. lol


----------



## Arnie

It makes me ill when I see so many Americans who want to live on the government tit and then complain when that same government tells them how to live. Remember the old saying: He who pays the piper calls the tune. You want government freebees? Get used to the government being in your business. 
If you love liberty then don't walk around with your hand out all the time.

Disclaimer: this rant is not directed at any Puff member.


----------



## IHT

Arnie said:


> Remember the old saying: He who pays the piper calls the tune. You want government freebees? Get used to the government being in your business.


this is sorta what i was getting at.
i don't believe that those who live in states with govt run healthcare (insurance) are those looking for "freebies", it just so happens to be what those elected officials passed into state law. not like the entire populous in the states of Maine and Mass are "cradle to grave" welfare types...

the key to what Arnie said, Mr. Lordi, is that when the govt is involved in running whatever aspect we're talking about, they make the rules for it. it's not a "free market" where you can then decide with your dollars/business where to get your medical coverage.

assuming you weren't taxed to pay for other peoples healthcare (insurance), and you had the choice to choose between many competing insurance providers, i'm sure you could find a policy where you could still be a cigar/pipe smoker.
but since your health insurance is provided by "the state", they get to tell you what you can/can't do to still be covered.. === lack of your freedom to choose.

what if you didn't want to pay for healthcare (insurance) at all?? well, too damn bad, you're taxed to pay for other people who were perfectly capable to do so before the laws changed...

sorry, i'm about to take this in a different direction and i don't want it to become so political that it gets locked.

so, to summarize as much as my ADD will allow ---> you, as a libertarian, should be all over the fact that YOU are not FREE to make decisions in which health insurance plan you want, and the govt is controlling it to the point of telling YOU what you can/can't do with YOUR LIFE or else not be covered by the state run health insurance, which you're taxed for whether you like it or not.

like you, i'm all over the map on my views politically. when i was a mod here many years ago when it was clubstogie, i was labeled a right wing nutjob... well, on some issues, i guess i am, mainly due to my military background. i also agree with libs on some things and disagree with them on many others.
when i take those political quizzes, i end up being listed as a libertarian as well.


----------



## Arnie

It boils down to this:
Socialized medicine effectively gives ownership of your body to the government.
The insurance mandate in the new healthcare law grants almost unlimited power to the federal government. 
This is not by accident. Nothing gives a politician a woody as much as power and control, that's what they live for. Every time they "help" us with a problem they take a little piece of our freedom as payment. Every dollar you pay in taxes and fees diminishes your freedom a little bit. 
I'm not saying we should live in a totally unregulated society, but many Americans have lost sight of the trade-offs that come with more and more government. Remember how much freedom you lose when you look to government to solve a problem you are fully capable of solving on your own.


----------



## Mante

> Socialized medicine effectively gives ownership of your body to the government.


 Dammit! I must be in the Matrix then. Glad I am though or Tash would not be with us.


----------



## Arnie

Tashaz said:


> Dammit! I must be in the Matrix then. Glad I am though or Tash would not be with us.


How does it work in Australia, Warren? Private healthcare or government healthcare?


----------



## Granger

Arnie said:


> It boils down to this:
> Socialized medicine effectively gives ownership of your body to the government.
> The insurance mandate in the new healthcare law grants almost unlimited power to the federal government.
> This is not by accident. Nothing gives a politician a woody as much as power and control, that's what they live for. Every time they "help" us with a problem they take a little piece of our freedom as payment. Every dollar you pay in taxes and fees diminishes your freedom a little bit.
> I'm not saying we should live in a totally unregulated society, but many Americans have lost sight of the trade-offs that come with more and more government. Remember how much freedom you lose when you look to government to solve a problem you are fully capable of solving on your own.


Gerald Ford (Pipe Smoker) said it best, "A _government big enough_ to give you everything you want is a _government big enough_ to _take_ from you everything you have."


----------



## Mante

Arnie said:


> How does it work in Australia, Warren? Private healthcare or government healthcare?


Both. Every tax payer pays a levy as part of their income tax (Currently 1% I think) so nobody sees it as a cost being that it is bundled in with income tax. Every Australian citizen has the right to free medical care & hospital. The only thing you may have to pay for is ambulance if you need it and specialist services ordered by your GP. Dental, optical etc is not covered but if you also have private health insurance you can opt for those. I wouldnt say you get better health care with private unless it's elective surgery but it does come with bells and whistles like single rooms & better food.

What I was referring to is some of the treatments Tash went through cost upwards of $10000 a month & if we did not have this system we could not have afforded those. I wouldnt even guess at the total cost but I know injections at one stage would have cost over $7000 per month but this was covered by the Public Healthcare System.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

This has been a interesting thread, yielding some good discussion, while keeping the politics out.


----------



## Arnie

Warren,

The Australian system sounds like the German healthcare system. A public option with a private "upgrade" if you would like to get better care. I like that idea better than the one the USA is now on track to adopt, that being total government control and delivery of all healthcare. 
I'm glad Tash was able to get good treatment.


----------



## TXsmoker

Arnie said:


> Warren,
> 
> The Australian system sounds like the German healthcare system. A public option with a private "upgrade" if you would like to get better care. I like that idea better than the one the USA is now on track to adopt, that being total government control and delivery of all healthcare.
> I'm glad Tash was able to get good treatment.


Have you ever read the Obamacare bill? Cheap government insurance required as a minimum, with private options still avalible. Its required so that more children would hopefully end up with healthcare.


----------



## Arnie

TXsmoker said:


> Have you ever read the Obamacare bill? Cheap government insurance required as a minimum, with private options still avalible. Its required so that more children would hopefully end up with healthcare.


Yea, I've read it. What do you mean by "cheap government insurance"? Are you talking about Medicare, Medicaid? Those programs are so far in debt they are unsustainable.

The way that bill is structured the insurance companies will be forced out of business or will become subsidiaries of the government and eventually the whole medical system will be socialized. It is modeled after the system in Mass. where insurance companies are losing money left and right and healthcare costs are skyrocketing. If you believe the Obamacare bill was just aimed at getting children healthcare you are naive. No insult intended.


----------



## Cigary

My ears and eyes are bleeding...the topic of Liberty and Justice for Some is a reality in every part of the world and depending on what economic situation you find yourself in is where you will find the "so called" justice. Every human being is deserving of "healthcare" regardless of their situation. If one wants to eat/smoke themselves into oblivian is their choice. To determine for another human being just where that line is divided is hypocritical at best and at worst self serving. I grow tired of any political pundit who makes healthcare a political perspective as to how it should be applied. I love how Senators and Congresspeople are able to determine what is best for us when they have the best healthcare ever...then want to deligate to the masses what they feel we should have...how about we have what they have since they get paid by us? Sorry, I was dreaming there.

I do not listen much to political people or their agendas because they either want to be heard to keep up their ratings or they stir up crap to increase their ratings...a la Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Democrats or Libertarians or any other professional orator who has their own private agenda to espouse whatever propaganda they have been infused with in thier life. The only true person who espouses Healthcare are those people who walk the talk...they are in for the commom good of all and not trying to legislate healthcare into a business platform where Admins are now in control of healthcare. 

I despise anybody who thinks that healthcare is for a certain percentage or class of people or how sick or well they are. This country can do better...it can do a lot better in terms of healthcare and it's not just about who smokes tobacco or who doesn't. A lot of healthcare is almost a smoke screen for euthanasia where only those who are 'healthy enough' for it can have it...for those who are the walking dead among us who weren't lucky enough to be healthy..well, too bad so sad for them. Read about the insurance companies who will not pay for healthcare for a person who paid into the system for 20 plus years only to be denied benefits because their last payment was 2 cents short..so they were denied care. Tell me again what prompts this kind of pervasive attitude of what people consider healthcare to mean? Businesses/Hospitals/Admins/Gov't look for ways to shortcut a system that by it's very nature is predatory and looks for ways to undercut it's own citizens. 

I admire Austrailia for how it does its business...it may not be perfect but I'd move there in a heartbeat if they would let me in their to live. Unfortunately I do not meet their standards for retirees who want to live there permanently...I don't make $500K but if I did...I'd move yesterday. ( where's my xanax....everytime I talk healthcare or Gov't my bowels seize up on me...everytime I talk about political pundits I feel the need to throw up )


----------



## Mr. Slick

One day it will be like Logan's Run


----------



## TXsmoker

Arnie said:


> Yea, I've read it. What do you mean by "cheap government insurance"? Are you talking about Medicare, Medicaid? Those programs are so far in debt they are unsustainable.
> 
> The way that bill is structured the insurance companies will be forced out of business or will become subsidiaries of the government and eventually the whole medical system will be socialized. It is modeled after the system in Mass. where insurance companies are losing money left and right and healthcare costs are skyrocketing. If you believe the Obamacare bill was just aimed at getting children healthcare you are naive. No insult intended.


Under the healthcare bill, medicare and medicaid are replaced with the new (supposedly better) healthcare. Yes, they are in debt, and thats why they need to be replaced with something better.

I know that healthcare for children wasnt the aim of the bill, but it was the aim of several people who participated in the writing of it. I know there are problems with it, but there are quite a few upsides to it as well. It will take some work to get it right, but its better than what we have now. I dont like having my life in the hands of stockholders. Why should a private company, who job is to make money, care about you? Even more so when they claim to be losing money, but give their upper managment over 10 billion in bonus's, just so they can show a loss.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Healthcare is a weird issue.

I keep looking for some "right answer" that isn't there. I think it comes down to personal values.

There is no "one size fits all", especilly in America with so much varity in peoples backgrounds.

Is it a right? No. There wouldn't even be a debate about it had people not taken the time to put into the research and finding these cures.

Should healthcare be affordable to all? Yes.

How we should go about it is as varied as the people that make up this great nation of ours. We're all patriots, we just don't always agree on what might be the best course of action.

Is Obama's reform socialism? Not by definition. Nor is it universal healthcare, really. It's reform of a social program put into place 40 or more years ago. The time to really complain was in the 60's, but since some of use where too young or weren't around yet, we have to decide if it needs reform or not, and if it's sustainable for the long run.

Since I'm too woefully ingorant in terms of economics and programs like these, I can't make an informed descision on it.

I do know, that while they don't have "death panels", they do have a thing in place to discuss with seniors "end of life treatment", which is a nice way of telling our old folk, since they're no long productive cogs in the machine, "hey, you're old and are going to die within 15-20 years anyways, time to take less care and die gracefully"

Intelluctully, I get it. Emotionally, it infuriates me. Much like the mandate.

It reminds me of Animal Farm, to be quite honest. Ironicly, written by a socialist. 

The scene when Nepoleon sells off the old horse for glue.

It seems like consumers have two options. Go with the soul sucking insurance dealers, or have the "objective" goverment deal with it and keep you healthy until it's time for you to be turned into glue.

At least with the soul-suckers, humans can easily sawy a company to do what's in it's best interest or lose money. The goverment has to remain "objective" as it speaks for everyone. 

Perhaps Ron Paul is right. Free market is the best.

Granted, all roads lead to Rome. It just depends on how you personally want to get there, that matters.


----------



## Mr. Slick

Mr.Lordi I like how you mentioned Animal Farm (which is one of my favorite reads) it's pretty much like 1984. What makes me angry is with health care we're not talking about an old horse that is unable to pull a cart anymore. We are talking about somebodys grandmother or grandfather. It makes me sick to think that our elders will go without care because somebody else thinks that the cost to treat them would be not worth it because they are not a productive member of society. If you remember Animal Farm. Boxer (the horse) was the wisest most honerable character on the farm. Without him all the other animals had no voice of reason all they had was the propaganda that was fed to them by the pigs. Like how the pigs changed their own rules to suit them throughout the course of the story. Not unlike our congress.


----------



## Arnie

If you can get through it, this is the best writing on healthcare I have seen to date. The basic problem is that the patient usually isn't paying the bill -- either the insurance company or the government is--- so the patient becomes an afterthought.

How American Health Care Killed My Father - Magazine - The Atlantic


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Mr. Slick said:


> Mr.Lordi I like how you mentioned Animal Farm (which is one of my favorite reads) it's pretty much like 1984. What makes me angry is with health care we're not talking about an old horse that is unable to pull a cart anymore. We are talking about somebodys grandmother or grandfather. It makes me sick to think that our elders will go without care because somebody else thinks that the cost to treat them would be not worth it because they are not a productive member of society. If you remember Animal Farm. Boxer (the horse) was the wisest most honerable character on the farm. Without him all the other animals had no voice of reason all they had was the propaganda that was fed to them by the pigs. Like how the pigs changed their own rules to suit them throughout the course of the story. Not unlike our congress.


"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"-Animal Farm Ch.10

This seems about right in describing congress and how they feel.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Arnie said:


> If you can get through it, this is the best writing on healthcare I have seen to date. The basic problem is that the patient usually isn't paying the bill -- either the insurance company or the government is--- so the patient becomes an afterthought.
> 
> How American Health Care Killed My Father - Magazine - The Atlantic


That was an interesting article. The proposal at the end sounded like something I was discussing with someone about a month ago, except better thought out. Lol

We're all liberal with other peoples money, but frugal with our own.


----------



## Arnie

Mr.Lordi said:


> That was an interesting article. The proposal at the end sounded like something I was discussing with someone about a month ago, except better thought out. Lol
> 
> We're all liberal with other peoples money, but frugal with our own.


This guys proposal is very similar to the one made by the CEO of Whole Foods. They both put the patient in control of expenses rather than try to pass the expense on to someone else. Masscare and Obamacare throw gasoline on the fire. Which brings us back to your original post about the state of Maine now wanting to, or at least thinking about, cutting costs by denying coverage to some of its citizens. It isn't about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat; it's about the fact that our present system of having insurance companies or government pay for medical care is unsustainable without rationing. This is what will happen unless we can come up with some new thinking about medical coverage. Sadly, I think the market based ideas will not go forward and we will get more collectivist ideas that will make matters worse. So many Americans are used to having someone else pay their medical bills. I know one thing for sure; exchanging beaurocrats for insurance companies, vice versa actually, is jumping out of the pan into the fire.


----------



## Granger

TXsmoker said:


> Under the healthcare bill, medicare and medicaid are replaced with the new (supposedly better) healthcare. Yes, they are in debt, and thats why they need to be replaced with something better.


You must have read a different version than the one that was signed into law. Medicare and Medicaid are not replaced at all, just a new third insurance program is added. This program does TAKE money from Medicare/Medicaid (so re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) but it is not a replacement.

And yes, I read every page of it.


TXsmoker said:


> I know that healthcare for children wasnt the aim of the bill, but it was the aim of several people who participated in the writing of it.


The aim of a few is irrelevant when speaking of a law, the overall intention of the law and its actual outcome are the issue.


TXsmoker said:


> I know there are problems with it, but there are quite a few upsides to it as well.


List them.[/quote] It will take some work to get it right, but its better than what we have now.[/quote]Opinion with no support. Please explain why it is better, you cannot make a statement that is facutal in its intent without support.


TXsmoker said:


> I dont like having my life in the hands of stockholders.


You trust a politician who sees you only as far as he can see a vote?


TXsmoker said:


> Why should a private company, who job is to make money, care about you?


They shouldn't and won't, they care about profit, so in a true free market they would create methods to increase profit.


TXsmoker said:


> Even more so when they claim to be losing money, but give their upper managment over 10 billion in bonus's, just so they can show a loss.


So, there is a single company...that paid out 10 billion in bonuses? Or if you mean the entire industry there are hundreds of companies that did not claim to be bankrupt, to a few that did, and those few did not pay out 10 Billion in bonuses. Hyperbole, or just an outright lie, does not strengthen your argument.


----------



## Granger

Mr. Slick said:


> One day it will be like Logan's Run


Renew...Renew...Renew!


----------



## Granger

Mr.Lordi said:


> We're all liberal with other peoples money, but frugal with our own.


When any politician or private citizen says "LESS GOVERNMENT" (And people on the Right, Left, Center, and Backend all say that!) what they mean is "Less of what I disagree with, more of what I agree with!"

Someone who supports gay marriage is fine with the government getting involved in that issue...as long it is on their side. While someone who opposes it is fine with the government getting involved in that issue...as long it is on their side. But if Government sides AGAINST their view...then we have too much government taking our rights!


----------



## smelvis

I got sick eating bad fish from a roadside stand in another Country CR I was delirious and had a 106 degree fever. They would not treat me without payment assurance first. Fine I said gave a CC and proceeded to have the best care I have ever experienced. If I had been a citizen it would have been free but being a visitor, legal or not I had to pay.

I was treated by several Doctors had a IV drip to re hydrate and constant care, just a great as I could imagine treatment and short story is?

My total bill with all meds $350 US out the door after 6 hours and still delirious for a few day's but slowly got better and was back playing in a little over 3 day's.

Hum>>A second world Country gave me my best ever medical experience for less than I pay for blood work here.


----------



## TXsmoker

Granger said:


> You must have read a different version than the one that was signed into law. Medicare and Medicaid are not replaced at all, just a new third insurance program is added. This program does TAKE money from Medicare/Medicaid (so re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) but it is not a replacement.
> 
> And yes, I read every page of it.The aim of a few is irrelevant when speaking of a law, the overall intention of the law and its actual outcome are the issue.List them.
> 
> Opinion with no support. Please explain why it is better, you cannot make a statement that is facutal in its intent without support.
> 
> You trust a politician who sees you only as far as he can see a vote?
> 
> They shouldn't and won't, they care about profit, so in a true free market they would create methods to increase profit
> 
> .So, there is a single company...that paid out 10 billion in bonuses? Or if you mean the entire industry there are hundreds of companies that did not claim to be bankrupt, to a few that did, and those few did not pay out 10 Billion in bonuses. Hyperbole, or just an outright lie, does not strengthen your argument.


I forgot the repubs and conservative dems added that stuff back in. Originaly it was supposed to replace those. I read the original, and kept track of some of the changes, but not enough I see.

Ok, correction, what the bill was supposed to be was far better than what we have now. I didnt know how bad it got screwed up before it got pushed through. I do know that the original healthcare for everyone was way better than what we have now. It was supposed to take the profit out of healthcare, and thats a good thing.

Living people vote, not dead ones.

Yes, but when they as individuals can take home more, and get some government assistance, those of a more crooked nature tend to take advantage. There are a lot of crooks nowadays.

10 bil is only the tip if the iceberg. Notice that I didnt say they were claiming bankruptcy, but showing a loss. Big difference. Just typical big buisness moving numbers around to get kickbacks, allowances, whatever they want. I got my info from a lawyer friend that is part of a lawsuit against several insurance companies. Big suit, he is just the go to guy in North Texas. I dont know much about it though, just some of his venting about crooks.


----------



## Granger

TXsmoker said:


> I forgot the repubs and conservative dems added that stuff back in. Originaly it was supposed to replace those. I read the original, and kept track of some of the changes, but not enough I see.


Actually, those were put in by Democrats because if the Bill killed Medicare or Medicaid it would have been political suicide. Wrong party to blame.


TXsmoker said:


> Ok, correction, what the bill was supposed to be was far better than what we have now.


Based on what?


TXsmoker said:


> I didnt know how bad it got screwed up before it got pushed through. I do know that the original healthcare for everyone was way better than what we have now.


Since you KNOW this, explain how?


TXsmoker said:


> It was supposed to take the profit out of healthcare, and thats a good thing.


How? Defend this statement.


TXsmoker said:


> Living people vote, not dead ones.


True, but there are some people who you don't CARE how they vote.


TXsmoker said:


> Yes, but when they as individuals can take home more, and get some government assistance, those of a more crooked nature tend to take advantage. There are a lot of crooks nowadays.


No dispute.

I did not see where you answered my question where I asked you to list what you asserted were multiple upsides to the law.


TXsmoker said:


> 10 bil is only the tip if the iceberg. Notice that I didnt say they were claiming bankruptcy, but showing a loss. Big difference. Just typical big buisness moving numbers around to get kickbacks, allowances, whatever they want. I got my info from a lawyer friend that is part of a lawsuit against several insurance companies. Big suit, he is just the go to guy in North Texas. I dont know much about it though, just some of his venting about crooks.


So, you posted someone's venting as fact? Not a good method to support a point or persuade. I did misread your comment on bankruptcy, but the point is you are posting a vague, non specific that you cannot support. As such it is just hyperbole.

Quick question: Why do we have the current system we have? That might be a good point to discuss and then compare to the proposed system.


----------



## Granger

smelvis said:


> I got sick eating bad fish from a roadside stand in another Country CR I was delirious and had a 106 degree fever. They would not treat me without payment assurance first. Fine I said gave a CC and proceeded to have the best care I have ever experienced. If I had been a citizen it would have been free but being a visitor, legal or not I had to pay.
> 
> I was treated by several Doctors had a IV drip to re hydrate and constant care, just a great as I could imagine treatment and short story is?
> 
> My total bill with all meds $350 US out the door after 6 hours and still delirious for a few day's but slowly got better and was back playing in a little over 3 day's.
> 
> Hum>>A second world Country gave me my best ever medical experience for less than I pay for blood work here.


But the citizens of that country subsidized your medical care.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Granger said:


> When any politician or private citizen says "LESS GOVERNMENT" (And people on the Right, Left, Center, and Backend all say that!) what they mean is "Less of what I disagree with, more of what I agree with!"
> 
> Someone who supports gay marriage is fine with the government getting involved in that issue...as long it is on their side. While someone who opposes it is fine with the government getting involved in that issue...as long it is on their side. But if Government sides AGAINST their view...then we have too much government taking our rights!


Ain't that the truth. Two years ago we delt with the gay marriage
Issue here. I was cocky and arrogant that Maine would do the right thing and pass it. We New Englanders are a lot of things and being wicked smaht is one of them, usually. Not that other states aren't smart, but for as stiff as we can, we're pretty hip to people rights and what not.

Arrogantly I sign the petition to get it placed on the ballot to vote, messing with the petitioner, but not rudely.

"You voted for John McCain, right?"

I had voted for McCain, but not because him and I have many ideological beliefs, it was more in protest of the SCHIP tax of Damocles hanging over smokers heads with Obama.

Long story short, it lost and I was surprised. Thought for sure we'ed follow Ma and Vt, but boy was I wrong. Lol

Nice to know politics can still surprise, though.


----------



## smelvis

Granger said:


> But the citizens of that country subsidized your medical care.
> 
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!


Brother there has never been anything free for me my entire life yet I see people raking it in for free all around me.

And no they did not, their cost of living is very small. $350 there is about an average school teachers wage a month that it.

This is political now and stepping out as politic are never fun and I Will say stuff I will regret, ya all have fun now.


----------



## IHT

i haven't been back since my last post, don't have time to read all the posts...
wanted to comment on one thing and one thing only that i saw a few posts after my last one.

you all need to get the idea of "health *CARE*" out of your minds, like "the little childrens could never see a Dr. woe to the little childrens of the US of As, woe to them, poor chillins."

the issue is not health *care*. you can NOT be denied *care* in the USA.

it's health *insurance* we're talking about. or, "paying for" our health care.

my wife is a long time ER nurse in different big cities... she's also worked with people from australia who have told her how the ERs work over there, which is very different in some respects and i wish (as do ALL ER nurses/Drs) would be adopted for the US. the biggest one being that a Dr goes out with the Nurse to triage and the Dr determines, on the spot, whether it's an "emergency" or not, and if it's not, he tells them to go home and call their primary care physician to make an appt. really cuts down on the ER wait times and overcrowding.
cuz in the states, "the little childrens who can't see no Drz" have their moms bring them into the ER for a case of the sniffles. if they can't get drugs for the kids, they drag them to another ER across town, and another, and another, and another... my wife saw the same lady twice in 1 shift and found out she had been to 4 other hospitals between visits... and then in the states, you need to have an interpreter in most big city ERs. of course you didn't bring in ID, of course you don't have a phone #, of course this is the address where you live so we can bill you... the costs have to be passed on to someone, and that ends up going to those of us who have a valid ID, have an address, have a phone, pay our bills, pay for our insurance, have jobs, have a primary care physician and only go to the hospital when needed.

in discussions i've had with some friends, who can't seem to get the difference between care/insurance, it all comes back to them thinkin "the poor little childrens of the ghetto can't get to sees no Dr's. oh, woe to the little kiddies, woe...."
and that's bullcrap. walk into any ER in the US, you've got healthcare right there, free of charge for the majority of them. why? cuz they lie to the nurses when they go through triage. my name? oh, sure, it's "whatever i made up". no, i don't have any ID on me. I live at "made up address", here's my "made up phone number". who does the hospital bill for that? it's a write off and the costs are passed on to those that pay their bills or pay for health "insurance"!
so, taxing me to pay for 'woe is the little childrens who can't see a Dr', which will end up costing me more, and i have less say in what i can have done than under the current free market system.. well, that's bullcrap.

i'm rambling, i know...
there's a whole helluva lot wrong with the current rise in "insurance", and forcing American citizens to pay for a govt program (or be fined for it) is as wrong as i can think something can be wrong. instead of addressing the issues that are driving the costs of "insurance" up, lets just tax everyone more, give them less options, run a lot of Drs out of their jobs they trained for and loved cuz they're going to pay them a lot less, just so politicians can feel good about doing something to cover "the little childrens who can't go see a Dr".

i know there's more to the bill than that, and i do agree that people with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be denied health insurance, but they should obviously pay more for using it more.
there's so much wrong with the current system, but this bill does nothing to fix any of it and will only make it worse.

sadly, but with a bit of humor (if you can find it), my wife and all her friends crack up at these youtube videos. if you really want to know WHY your ER visits take forever, and costs so much, these videos are reportedly made based on what the Drs and Nurses really have to deal with on a daily basis.
there are probably hundreds of these videos.
YouTube - Emergency Room doctor pet peeves
YouTube - ER drug seeker
YouTube - typical er patient

damn, i know this is waaaay off topic to the OP.
mods, if this is too "political", feel free to delete this reply so this thread doesn't close because of it.


----------



## Arnie

Nunya,

You're right about all that. But the word "healthcare" has become a generic term for any and all medical related issues.

it all may prove to be moot, as we are sliding down the slope toward socialized medicine. Obamacare just put the gas pedal to the floor and we are speeding off a cliff.


----------



## Granger

smelvis said:


> Brother there has never been anything free for me my entire life yet I see people raking it in for free all around me.
> 
> And no they did not, their cost of living is very small. $350 there is about an average school teachers wage a month that it.


If you paid the average school teachers wage, then $350 would not be as cheap as you make it sound. If $350 is about a teachers monthly pay, then they make $4200 per year. You paid 8.3% of a teachers income for one doctor visit.

If you extrapolate that to American Salaries for teachers, who average 43,633 per year then it would have cost $3621.54. Not a very good deal for you. Further, if they have government run health care, then YES the people who pay taxes subsidized your care.


----------



## smelvis

Granger said:


> If you paid the average school teachers wage, then $350 would not be as cheap as you make it sound. If $350 is about a teachers monthly pay, then they make $4200 per year. You paid 8.3% of a teachers income for one doctor visit.
> 
> If you extrapolate that to American Salaries for teachers, who average 43,633 per year then it would have cost $3621.54. Not a very good deal for you. Further, if they have government run health care, then YES the people who pay taxes subsidized your care.


It was a Private hospital, the public hospital said to go to my hotel room and drink lots of fluids So I will say it once more. No it was not subsidized.

Thanks and yes it was a very good deal for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now see ya :yo:


----------



## Mr.Lordi

I had to google this once, so I knew what I was writing about.


Healthcare is insurance.

Health care is the act of getting care.

So when we're discussing healthcare, it's correct so long as it isn't spaced.


----------



## Granger

smelvis said:


> It was a Private hospital, the public hospital said to go to my hotel room and drink lots of fluids So I will say it once more. No it was not subsidized.
> 
> Thanks and yes it was a very good deal for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Now see ya :yo:


Then if it WAS private it was Cheap for YOU, but it would not be cheap for a person who lives there.


----------



## smelvis

Granger said:


> Then if it WAS private it was Cheap for YOU, but it would not be cheap for a person who lives there.


Why are you so intent on this a little story about a trip to Costa Rica is now an aggravating bullet point thread?

First off I take offense to questioning my word if it WAS private very bad form. what is your problem?

I was not talking about what it was to them I was stating how another Country treats Visitors and Illegal aliens.

Of course it was private why would I say so if not, in the Barrio Amon District there is a Public and Private I went to the Public and then after getting sub par service a GF took me almost helping me up the stairs to the Private hospital. BTW this trip turned out to be a 27 day stay! great place to play.

I have been to CR five times now and have had reason with my normal medical issues to ask these questions from Friends living there. Now if you want to know anything else look it up, the only thing I have for you at this point is negative feedback for being quite rude.

Not everyone wants to write 500 word posts and debate I am here for fun and to help when I can. sometimes guy's like you make me wonder why I bother.

I do not like my word questioned it is paramount to calling it a lie. I take that personal internet forum or not.

I am not going to quote or answer you again. I am going to leave you negative feedback and I expect you to probably do the same and write 500 words or more after you spend hours on Google and your calculator.

Good Bye!


----------



## Habanolover

Let's keep the thread civil or it will be locked. This will be the one and only time I will say this.


----------



## Mr.Lordi

Habanolover said:


> Let's keep the thread civil or it will be locked. This will be the one and only time I will say this.


Since it's my thread, could I just request a lock? Seems to me that the discussion has run it's course, given that people are now getting bothered, rather than having a quiet discussion of the topic at hand.

Seems to me that it can only deteriorate from here, but I've been wrong before.


----------



## Herf N Turf

Mr.Lordi said:


> This has been a interesting thread, yielding some good discussion, while keeping the politics out.


It certainly WAS, but now it seems it's descended into a third grade lavatory pissing contest.



Habanolover said:


> Let's keep the thread civil or it will be locked. This will be the one and only time I will say this.


I applaud Donnie's patience. Mine, runs far thinner.



Mr.Lordi said:


> Since it's my thread, could I just request a lock? Seems to me that the discussion has run it's course, given that people are now getting bothered, rather than having a quiet discussion of the topic at hand.
> 
> Seems to me that it can only deteriorate from here, but I've been wrong before.


Gladly! And...

DONE!


----------

